we have not solved the power problem. We have found some techniques for
building sensors that are not always on that look to have a 6-7 year
battery life - 1) these devices are not considered part of the mesh
routing and 2) they communicate with the core of mesh which is always
on.
power is going to be one of the hardest problems, but in our view of the
application space, wireless does not equate to only battery operated.
geoff
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 18:53 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> yo... have you solved the power problem? small, (nearly) always on
> for three/five years is a tough nut to crack. tried it at least
> three different times in the past 10 years. kind of doable w/ active RFIDs
> but the life expectancy is much shorter.
>
> --bill
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 10:00:39AM -0700, Peter Sherbin wrote:
> > > clarify. However, as Timo said, the requirements should come from the
> > > industry, they should be real problems to be solved, so far we are not
> > > seeing this.
> >
> > Here is an industry input. I am working on a case where I need 10M - 100M
> > mobile
> > sensors size of 1/10 of a penny spread accross North America to provide
> > updates
> > every 10 min on their location / physical status for the duration of three
> > - five
> > years. All of them must have full length IPv6 addresses.
> >
> > When should I expect the solution from this WG?
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > --- Behcet Sarikaya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I do not think it is the question of whether or not IPv6 can be
> > > implemented, the answer is of course it can be. Even IPsec/ MIPv6 can
> > > implemented as Phil said. From IP point of view this is another L2, and
> > > that's where I would like to comment.
> > > It seems that there is a fundamental problem in forming WGs on
> > > specific link layers, we have 6lowpan and 16ng as examples. In the past
> > > this was not followed, e.g. we did not have 3G related WGs although 3G
> > > has had much bigger impact.
> > > The question we should ask is what is the model to follow in 6lowpan?
> > > This seems to be not well defined so far and the discussions can help it
> > > clarify. However, as Timo said, the requirements should come from the
> > > industry, they should be real problems to be solved, so far we are not
> > > seeing this.
> > > As an example of the model, for example, for 16ng, we have WiMAX and
> > > to a lesser extent IEEE 802.16 that produce the requirements for any
> > > IETF standardization. WiMAX is taking the link spec from IEEE and
> > > defining a full-fledged cellular network using this link.
> > > We might probably need to define what a sensor network is and then
> > > derive the requirements for 6lowpan WG to do IETF-domain standardization.
> > > Hope this helps,
> > >
> > > --behcet
> > > Geoff Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 23:33 -0500, Timothy J. Salo wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>Subject: Re: [6lowpan] Working Group Charter
> > > >>>From: Geoff Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >>>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:20:32 -0600
> > > >>>
> > > >>>What do you mean "that we have no intention of actually implementing
> > > >>>IPv6 in wireless PANs". We have every intention of implementing IPv6
> > > >>>in
> > > >>>wireless PANs!
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>The working group arguably isn't implementing IPv6 from two
> > > >>perspectives:
> > > >>
> > > >>o I don't think the IETF accepts the notion that implementing
> > > >> a subset of IPv6 is actually implementing IPv6. But, I could
> > > >> be wrong. I may ask this on question on the main IETF mail
> > > >> list.
> > > >> Having said that, the working group intends to implement
> > > >> only a subset of IPv6, (e.g., no IPsec, no mobile IP, etc).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Too bad that we have to rehash this again because you are coming late to
> > > >this discussion. We dealt with this issue already and the IESG said
> > > >that an implementation that did not include IPsec and the like was still
> > > >an implementation of IPv6.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>o The protocol described in the format specification is not
> > > >> IPv6. If you fed it into an IPv6 stack, nothing good would
> > > >> happen. It is, however, a protocol that can easily be
> > > >> transformed into [a subset of] IPv6.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >If you do not use header compression then an IPv6 packet in the payload
> > > >of the 6lowpan frame format will work perfectly fine and everything good
> > > >will happen. The 6lowpan compressed headers are never intended to be
> > > >passed uncompressed out of a 6lowpan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>> In fact WE (Invensys and some other companies) already have and WE
> > > >>>(Invensys) have it deployed in a significant number of homes in pilots
> > > >>>in the US right now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>See above.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>I do not agree with the wording for your suggested Charter changes,
> > > >>>though I do truly appreciate that someone is starting some sort of
> > > >>>exchange on the list.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>Feel free to suggest alternative language and ideas.
> > > >>
> > > >>-tjs
> > > >>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>6lowpan mailing list
> > > >>[email protected]
> > > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >6lowpan mailing list
> > > >[email protected]
> > > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > 6lowpan mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 6lowpan mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
